Send change order

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations (openWorld, non-idempotent, destructive), the description adds the default recipient, the hard failure mode ('a customer without an email stops the call'), and the fact that status is not mutated. It does not describe what a successful call returns or any email/rate constraints, but the added context is substantial.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the state-mutation caveat at the end where it belongs. The panel/UI reference ('as the panel's View/Email PDF does') is minor filler for an agent but harmless.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema, and the description covers the default path, failure condition, and side-effect boundary — enough to call it correctly. Only the shape of a successful response is left implicit.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 80% and the schema already documents 'to', 'message', 'subject', and 'change_order_id'. The description reinforces the 'to' default and its failure case but says nothing about 'copy_me' or the 10-recipient cap, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Emails the change order as a PDF') plus the recipient scope, which cleanly separates it from send_estimate, send_invoice, and from update_change_order. An agent can pick it without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly names the alternative and what it does differently ('The status does not change: update_change_order sets pending_approval or approved'), and states the default recipient path when 'to' is omitted. Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are covered.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.